Trovato v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 319 (2011)

Irene Trovato, who was employed as a sales representative for Beckman Coulter, submitted a letter of resignation on May 14, 2007, with an effective date of May 25, 2007. On May 8, 2008, Trovato filed an administrative complaint against Beckman and her former supervisor, Michael Allyn. On May 22, 2008, Trovato sued Beckman

Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011)

Vincent Staub, a former angiography technician for Proctor Hospital, was a member of the United States Army Reserve. Staub alleged that his employment was terminated in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) because his supervisor (Janice Mulally) and her supervisor (Michael Korenchuk) were hostile to

Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011)

Eric Thompson and his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, were both employees of North American Stainless (“NAS”). Three weeks after Regalado filed a charge with the EEOC against NAS, alleging sex discrimination, NAS fired Thompson. Thompson subsequently filed a lawsuit against NAS, claiming the company had fired him in order to retaliate

Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2011)

Gina Holmes sued her employer for harassment based on pregnancy, retaliation, constructive discharge, violation of the right to privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the defendants with respect to the claims for harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge, and a jury decided against Holmes with respect

NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011)

Twenty-eight contract employees of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (“JPL”), which is owned by NASA but operated by Cal Tech, had never been subjected to a government background investigation. In 2004, a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission prompted the President to order new, uniform identification standards for federal employees, including contractor employees. The Department of

Coppinger-Martin v. Solis, 627 F.3d 745 (2010)

Carole Coppinger-Martin alleged that Nordstrom, Inc. violated the whistle-blower-protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, by terminating her employment in retaliation for her reporting to supervisors conduct she believed violated the rules and regulations of the SEC. The United States Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) dismissed Coppinger-Martin’s complaint as

County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm’n, 190 Cal. App. 4th 178 (2010)

During the course of collective bargaining, the Service Employees International Union asked the county for the personal contact information (names, home addresses and home telephone numbers) of county employees who are in the bargaining unit but who are not members of the union. When the county refused

Toyota v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1391 (2010)

Steven Braun sued Toyota Motor Sales and his supervisor Randall Bauer for gender discrimination, sexual harassment, defamation, constructive discharge and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Toyota and Bauer filed a motion to compel Braun to submit to an independent psychiatric examination, which the trial court granted, but it also permitted Braun’s attorney

Grobeson v. City of Los Angeles, 190 Cal.App.4th 778 (2010)

A jury rejected Mitchell Grobeson’s claims against the City of Los Angeles and Daniel Watson for alleged unlawful discrimination, harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge. The trial court granted Grobeson’s motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, and the Court of Appeal affirmed except that it ordered the unlawful retaliation claim that was

Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 627 F.3d 745 (2010)

Bradford Coleman sued his employer, Estes Express Lines and its regional division Estes West, in state court for alleged violations of California wage and hour statutes. Estes Express removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), and Coleman filed a successful motion to remand it back to